WOULD OBAMA PICK A REPUBLICAN FOR HIS CABINET? SURE, MOST PRESIDENTS DO REACH ACROSS THE AISLE

Only one of these Republicans learned

Last night I saw an early copy of the London Times, a paper that has seen much better, and far more reputable, days (pre-Murdoch). Murdoch has managed to turn the venerable Times into a second or third rate scandal sheet, not something serious news consumers would ever think of turning to. I was considering of writing about a story by Sarah Baxter, Barnstorming Obama Plans to Pick Republicans For Cabinet, but eventually realized the nonsensical piece, filled with distortions, inaccuracies and misinformation was, after all, just meant for an ill-informed foreign audience, so... better to just ignore it. Unfortunately, I wasn't the only one who noticed it and today it's, inexplicably, part of the national conversation, the American national conversation.

First off, Ms. Baxter, coming from England where there is a different political system, is probably unaware that it is fairly routine for a president, especially a Democrat, to select at least one member of the other party for a cabinet job. Even the Bush Regime, the most narrowly partisan administration in contemporary history, chose a legitimate high profile Democrat for his Cabinet. [Although most of Bush's 32 cabinet selections have been partisan hacks of little or no accomplishment-- like Elaine Chao, Gale Norton and Spencer Abraham-- and sniveling cronies like Donald Evans, Donald Rumsfeld, Alberto Gonzales and Condoleeza Rice, he did pick Norman Mineta (D-CA), former chairman of the House Public Works and Transportation Committee as well as President Clinton's Secretary of Commerce, as his first Secretary of Transportation.

And before Bush, Nixon had appointed John Connally, former Democratic Governor of Texas (and a Navy Secretary under Kennedy) as Secretary of the Treasury 2 years before he changed his party and become a Republican. Later, President Clinton appointed Republican Senator William Cohen of Maine his Secretary of Defense. And long before that I remember scratching my young head and wondering why JFK appointed Republican Douglas Dillon as his Secretary of the Treasury (who was kept on by LBJ). So even if it's true that Obama, like McCain, is considering finding a member or too from the other party for his cabinet, it's not exactly headline news.

The clueless reporter, allowed on to Obama's campaign plane for no reason I can discern, is moronic enough to refer to his campaign as a "quest to become America’s first black president," probably not what he or his supporters have on the top of their minds, although it does play right into the Murdoch-type divisive Old School media narrative.

Another Republican talking point Ms. Baxter was sure to slip into her story exposes the inadequacy of whatever screening policy the Obama media team has when they decide who gets on the plane with the candidate. Fortunately she didn't have any explosives with her.

But the Arizona senator, 71, has an advantage over Obama, a foreign policy novice, on defense and national security. Republicans intend to draw a sharp contrast between McCain, who was imprisoned in the “Hanoi Hilton” by the North Vietnamese, and Obama, who was a schoolboy on the same continent in Indonesia at the time.

Obama got a taste of McCain’s withering scorn last week when he was ridiculed for appearing to suggest in a televised debate with Clinton that Al-Qaeda was not in Iraq. “I have news for you,” McCain chided him. The terrorist group was already there and was called “Al-Qaeda in Iraq." Round one, by general consent, went to McCain.

I'm sure the Murdoch newsrooms around the world had a consensus that McCain won the round. But among normal people, not a chance. The was no "Al-Qaeda in Iraq" in Iraq when Bush attacked. Saddam, a secularist, hated all religionist extremists and recognized how dangerous Al-Qaeda was. Ironically, there was one Al-Qaeda outpost-- up in Kurdistan, protected from Saddam by British and American planes. McCain lost the first round miserably, except among right wing propagandists who can spin reality all they like. Bush's 19% overall approval rating is actually an 18% when only registered voters are surveyed.

Baxter mentions that Obama told a Dallas audience that "he intended to follow the example of his hero, President Abraham Lincoln, and appoint a cabinet of the talents, irrespective of party labels. 'I think America deserves the best person for every job and so we are going to be canvassing far and wide if I am fortunate enough to be elected.'"

Larry Korb, a defence official under President Ronald Reagan who is backing Obama, said: “By putting a Republican in the Pentagon and the State Department you send a signal to Congress and the American people that issues of national security are above politics.”

Korb recalled that President John F Kennedy appointed Robert McNamara, a Republican, as defense secretary in 1961. “Hagel is not only a Republican but a military veteran who would reassure the troops that there was somebody in the Pentagon who understood their hopes, concerns and fears,” he said.

Obama intends to pour more troops and resources into defeating the Taliban in Afghanistan.

He told the Sunday Times he would expect European allies to contribute more to the fight. “You can’t have a situation where the United States and Britain are called on to do the dirty work and nobody else wants to engage in actual fire-fights with the Taliban.”

...Obama is hoping to appoint cross-party figures to his cabinet such as Chuck Hagel, the Republican senator for Nebraska and an opponent of the Iraq war, and Richard Lugar, leader of the Republicans on the Senate foreign relations committee.

Senior advisers confirmed that Hagel, a highly decorated Vietnam war veteran and one of McCain’s closest friends in the Senate, was considered an ideal candidate for defense secretary. Some regard the outspoken Republican as a possible vice-presidential nominee although that might be regarded as a “stretch."

Yes, it very well might be. On the other hand, Hagel, who endorsed McCain as the moderate against Bush in 2000, is revolted by McCain's current assumption of the entire Bush agenda, lock, stock and Lieberman. Remember, it was Hagel, not a Democrat, who yelled the emperor had no clothes: "I think this speech given by this president represents the most dangerous foreign policy blunder in this country since the Vietnam war."

Recently he called McCain's policy on the surge "intellectually dishonest and, as my friend Cliff Schecter reminded me, "he kicked Joe Lieberman's ass on national TV for questioning those opposed to the surge and is continually calling the policy a failure." Another of Hagel's recent arguments about the Bush-McCain policy of endless war:

It's not only a dirty trick, but it's dishonest, it's hypocritical, it's dangerous and irresponsible. The fact is this is not Petraeus' policy, it's the Bush policy. The military is-- certainly very clear in the Constitution-- is subservient to the elected public officials of this country... but to put our military in a position that this administration has put them in is just wrong, and it's dangerous."